falling by 6,000 followed by an ism manufacturing report from july 2004. look at how the dow is trading up about 66 points getting closer and closer to that 11,000 mark. the s&p 500 also traded to the plus side, it's up 0.7%. 1177 the last trade there and the nasdaq trading higher, as well, by higher than 12 points. trish, what's happening on the floor? >> hey, melissa, people buying into this market ahead of the key job's report tomorrow. of course, we all know it's a holiday tomorrow and market is going to be closed and people are trying to anticipate what that number is going to look like and so far the thinking is that it will be pretty good based on the weekly jobless claim numbers. bob pisani down here on the floor with me. we should point out that the future's market is being affected and this may have to do with the goldman call. >> put up the s&p here again. we're off the highs here in the last 15 or 20 minutes and you'll
see that move coudown and apparently goldman is lowering their numbers. they were at 275 and were at 200,000 and these are reports floating around for the last 10, 15 minutes. but i think that's why we're getting off the highs. but, nonetheless, i see a lot of positive signs here today. let's just run down with the good news we have today. we had the ceos of primerica on. it opened at $19 cl a19 and it' trading at $19. the highest levels, 59 since july of 2004. so, those were just great numbers and the march numbers for gm just came out and do you see that, 43%. chevy was fantastic and look at the earnings this morning. we talked about borders and carmax and micron and borders. pretty good start to the quarter. you know the laggers last quarter, energy stocks and the big material names, guess what's the leader this morning? energy stocks and material names.
traders aren't stupid. it's buy low and sell high. when the news is, when the news reflects optimism, i reflect optimism. >> let's end then on that optimistic note as we head into this long weekend. good to see you, bob, have a good weekend. larry, i know that's music to your ears. we'll send it back to melissa. music to your ears, too. >> jobless claims falling by 6,000 last week. estimates are all over the map right now they're for a gain of about 200,000 jobs but treasury secretary tim geithner says too many americans are still out of work. >> the economy is growing now, that's the first step, but with growth more jobs will come. the unemployment rate is still terribly high and it's going to stay unacceptably high for a long period of time. take a long time to bring it down just because of the damage by the recession. >> so, are we about to turn the corner on employment or not? joining us to discuss william
rogers chief economist and professor at rutgers university. thanks to both of you for joining us. john, how do you set up for this knowing that tomorrow the markets are closed? >> i think what we're looking for is some evidence of a first quarter bottom for pay rolls that was earlier hinted of by bottoming by capital spending in the third quarter of 2009. it would take a very weak number on payrolls, i think, to trigger a significant selloff by equities. i don't think that is going to be the case. >> what is a very weak number in your opinion? expectations have soared out of control. >> a weak number is a loss of jobs in the private sector in excess of 50,000. of course, we're going to get a special lift from census-related hiring. we'll want to take that out and see what's happening in the private secter. >> i'd like to take them out
permanently, but that's a different segment. bill rogers, welcome to "the call." the unemployment claims drop, but this is the wrong, this is not the right survey week. i want to ask you about the ism. great number, best in several years. a lot of positives in new orders and rising inventories. that's wonderful. the employment number actually slipped a little bit. are we in a jobless recovery? can business expand and manufacturing expand without creating sufficient volume of new jobs? >> yeah, i think we are in a jobless recovery. we've probably been in one since the last quarter of last year, but we are seeing some positive signs. tomorrow i'm looking for continued growth in temporary employment and it's not where we want to be, but, again, marching forward. the hours number per week march there. we've sort of been plateauing, plateauing and large part of it people pushing productivity.
>> stay with that for a second with me. the boom in productivity which is a great thing economy wide and good for profits and good for efficiency and good for capital formation, but may not be good for jobs. >> that's right. i think during this recession, i mean, employers have really pushed their workers as really a great deal and the question is, when will that sort of bubble over and, starting, as i said, temporary employment is growing and we need to see hours rise and there is an issue with health care reform finally getting signed and dotted and you'll get policy certainty. >> is that a problem? taxes, regulation, mandate. henry waxman is having show trials, show trials for caterpillar, deere, verizon and all these companies. >> time-out. we may disagree about the outcomes, the content. about the content. >> bureau of labor statistics. >> but i think one thing that has been troubling folks over
the last few months is a lack of policy certainty. we have some resolution there and we'll get more resolution in some of these other areas where main street and wall street can really begin -- >> is that a plan? it's not an obstacle? >> let's get john back in for a second. >> to me the right question to ask through this year when the economy be ready is to stand on their own two feet? >> great point. you can, i think, raise those issue physical you do it now, possibly too early and when you do it later and the economy can't stand on its own two feet. >> my answer is i think the economy will be able to stand on its own two feet by the end of summer. it's going to be fairly evident. regarding the ism, the longest delivery waiting time since the middle of 2004. that has to be a positive for hiring activity. that tells us that companies perhaps are being swamped with orders and they have to start hiring more workers to get those
goods out on time. let's not forget that with this improved profitability that results from the deepest drop by unit labor costs on record, we're going to see more risk taking by companies, improve proved profitability improves balanced sheets and that can only benefit a company's willingness or increase a company's willingness to take on new risk with new ventures and new employees. >> do they have hire more? put in temporary workers and farm jobs out overseas and all the other demons that we've heard about. >> well, you could do that up to a point, but, be perfectly honest, as long as we continue to grow business sales, as long as profits continue to soar at a double-digit percentage rate, the return of material jobs growth in the private sector is not that far away. >> it's worth qualifying to both of you who are, i think i will say on the relatively optimistic side. the employment subsection of this was 55.1. so, that's well above the dmz
line of 48 or 50. so, that ain't bad. william let's take you, again, where do you come out? all these government policies coming out of washington. do you think if you're a large business you hold back? remember, regulations have to be implemented. the mandates themselves are a little bit unclear and we sort of generically know. what do these large corporations do? maybe the small companies do. how does it show up in the job statistics? >> i think it shows up initially as being just where people are putting their toe into the water, testing the temperature and not being as aggressive with their risk taking, but, again, once we get some certainty and some clarity, then i think employers will go forward. as to whether we're going to return something like the wild west where very little deregulation. i don't think there is an
appetite there on main street, too. >> we have breaking news. >> how many new jobs do we need to get the unemployment rate down? 125,000 on the pay roll survey or maybe the household survey. the household survey had two big months and that's very positive. >> consistent over each month you needed in excess of 100,000, 200,000. >> thanks to both of you for joining us. the markets are closed tomorrow but we have a special edition of "squawk box" on from 6:00 to 9:00. we were looking at what it means for the markets and you tomorrow beginning right here on cnbc and let's head to matt nesto who has breaking news on gm. >> they are breaking our backs here turning 43 into 15. follow the numbers here, folks. it's not easy. general motors comes out and reports that 43% increase year-on-year in their march sales. but there was one more selling
date this year. you have to adjust it. that brings it down to 37.8 adjusts for just the core brands. now, remember, they discontinued sales of pontiac, hummer, saab and saturn. if you back out those brands which together were down almost 90% from a year ago, you get down to 15.9%. only five estimates out there. so even on the adjusted selling days at 37, it looks like it was a pretty strong month. but you can see, guys, that this is not an easy company to track still. back to you. >> matt nesto, thank you so much for that. when we come back, jamie dimon says the big banks are being demonized. whether he's right on the bank backlash is justified, larry. steven roach joins us to discuss china as a scapegoat.
speaking out. bank of america, wells fargo, take a look, all trading up. jpmorgan chase really leading the pack. they're up better than 1%. excuse me, citigroup up 2%. mary thompson joins us with more on dimon's pretty strong words. >> this, of course, comes from the annual letter to shareholders and if you heard jamie dimon speak at the company's annual meeting all these words have a familiar ring. as he has for about the last year and a half, he defends his bank saying it and other healthy firms shouldn't be lumped in with other unhealthy banks. he encourages cooperation that it is necessary to avoid making the mistakes that lead to the financial crisis to avoid making those mistakes again. dimon uses a 36-page letter to point out in the current political environment, size has been demonized, writing capping the size of america's largest banks won't change the needs of
big business and there aren't big u.s. banks to serve them, he warns these companies are going to turn to foreign banks. he also calls for a time-out saying we have to stop slipping into a cacaphony of finger pointing and blame. hurt far more than top executives and also lower-level employees as well as shareholders. far from being a rage against washington in a section title dimon writes of his support of systemic risk regulator and bank or nonbank financial surveervic. at the heart of the financial crisis he writes poor risk management and on this he is the on the same page as the treasury secretary. >> you will not be able to take on the risks that would impair the stability of the financial system, risk creating a crisis that would cause this much damage again. >> again, gither addressed to
the big ganks. in the those who did not practice good risk management, he says they are no longer in existence. trish, back to you. >> mary thompson, thank you so much. we'll continue this discussion on whether the banks are being demonized but bring in bob pisani. we were just talking about this, bob, they lowered their estimates in terms of the jobs that would be gained. >> talking at the top of the hour. a little bit of a dip in the s&p 500 and 40 minutes ago and we now confirmed that goldman sachs cut its estimates. one of the highest numbers on the street. deutch bank has $250,000, $275,000. they're also up there pretty high. that is now the consensus number. goldman did cut that and we can see a little move down the list. 45 minutes or so. >> thank you so much for that, bob pisani. back to our discussion on whether these banks and bankers
have been demonized, we want to bring in rhonda west and peter flaherty. great to see you guys. peter, look, i know that you feel that the banks essentially brought themselves this, this mess by taking on too much risk. i agree entirely with you on that. but, you know, i guess at this point, enough is a enough, right? we need to move forward. why is it that politicians continue to demonize these guys? >> well, i'm sorry if jamie dimon has his feelings hurt, but he brought it upon him. he supported obama for president and raised money for obama. virtually all the money and banks supported obama. goldman sachs was obama's largest single source of cash during the campaign. you know, dimon reminds me -- >> did they just not clue into the fact that this was someone from the democratic party that believed fundamentally in a very different financial system perhaps than some of the capi l
capitalists on wall street? >> i don't think obama was deceptive during the campaign. you know, dimon reminds me of the truck company owner in new jersey who thinks he's a tough guy and can play with the mob. >> at least someone is out there speaking. >> organized crime end up controlling his company. >> taylor, i usually would side with what peter says but i'll take the other side in your honor, taylor. jamie dimon runs a good bank and some of the things he said about banks being demonized are correct, aren't they? i mean, after all they paid down the t.a.r.p. and taxpayers made money on this and he wishes we hadn't taken the debt guarantees, but, most of all, it is time to move on and jpmorgan is doing very well, taylor. move me on on this. >> first of all, i wish someone would demonize me with several billion dollars. >> how about that. >> i think if you look at the millions of dollars that banks
are putting into, trying to derail this very financial regulatory reform that dimon claims they support, then we're not moving on. we're not moving on until we fix the broken system that caused this economic collapse in the first place. >> jamie, all right, i'm with you on that, too. i want to add this point. jamie dimon did say that too big to fail should end and that is my own mantra. if you want to really get the excess risk out of the system without having micromanagement of little bureaucratic regulators standing over every trader, then end too big to fail. would chris todd be able to do it, taylor? >> i just lost my sound, dpis. >> i'll answer that question. >> i think chris dodd in that is the key. >> i'd much rather have the market deciding when companies go in and out of business and not the government. i just talked about how much political influence these
bankers have with the company just think what will happen if one is teetering on the edge and the ceo of that company has supported the person who is going to make the decision. >> i'll take you on that point. it is very popular from a tea party and populous standpoint to end too big to fail. when you read what they're doing, they're certainly moving in the direction of putting these banks, if they're teetering, into a bankruptcy process. i think that we, i think the process, the dodd process may be it's going to be bipartisan, deserves more support. jamie dimon is pretty firm on too big to fail. i think he deserves credit and so does christopher dodd. >> dimon deserves credit for not making some of the risk that his colleagues did. but at the same time, jpmorgan chase is a big player in the derivative market. his hands are not clear and i think this whole thing started back in october of 2008 when henry paulson brought all these chiefs into a conference room in
washington, d.c., and told them they had a new partner, the federal government. jamie dimon nor any of his colleagues made a peep. >> i lost sound for a little bit and i wanted to jump back in and say i am a little concerned about the revisionist history going on here. jpmorgan has come out in a better position than a lot of other banks. but let's be clear, when we were facing the economic collapse, the entire economy was teetering on the brink here and it wasn't just a couple of banks. it was the entire financial system and it was put in that position by all of these banks acting irresponsibly. >> you blame the banks. should we just abolish the banks, taylor? where do we go from here? >> what we need to do is put in serious regulatory reform like we're exactly trying to do. >> like too big to fail. are the banks fighting tooth and nail against too big to fail? are they? >> i saw an ad on television right before our segment fighting the consumer financial protection agency. >> that's different than too big to fail.
let's separate elizabeth warren out. i'll take the chris dodd democratic position. are the banks fighting for dodd's too big to fail? >> there have been millions of lobbying dollars pouring in against this. >> we have to go, guys. thank you for joining us and have a terrific weekend. >> thank you, you, too. when we come back from google to morgan stanley stephen roach is blaming china for america's problems and he says blaming china is bad economics and he'll join us live to explain. plus, the ipad goes on sale saturday. we'll head live to apple stores. i wish i knew what an ipad was. [ clinking of plates ]
well, how'd you get started? lind-waldock. call lind-waldock, the premier futures broker, at 800-445-2000 and see if commodities are right for you. oil an 18-month high. >> this is the economic factor. this is an issue. i don't think people have really focused on this. this is a big issue. >> we couldn't break through 83. let's watch and see where it closes today. this is an enormous move. larry? >> can't be a plus for consumers or business profits.
all right, america's fixation on the china problem now boiling over from trade to dwoog tool the chinese currency. china is being blamed for all of americans problems. but our next guest quite properly says hold on. blaming the chinese is the wrong policy. joining us now, stephen roach, the distinguished chairman of morgan stanley. i'm so glad you wrote what you wrote. i think you got the story completely right. let me just ask you, what is your forecast right now? will we have a currency and trade war with china? i couldn't think of anything worse, but how do you see it? >> larry, i am worried about it. we have this april 15th bi-annual report of the u.s. treasury and there's a ground swell of support from academics and politicians to put the currency manipulation label on china and then the congress would follow that up with a threat of trade sanctions and china, according to the senior
officials that i met with in the last ten days would not sit by and take thissidally. it's a big risk and we've got to be pretty worried about it, i think. >> at the same time, china becomes more and more essential as a trading partner to every extreme. if you look at numbers out of ford today saying sales to china up 40% and we're selling them products, as well. we need them to be our consumer in the future. i'm not sure the american public realizes how many jobs are created here because of what's going on in china. how do you turn around america's perspep perception and the public's perception. >> that's hard to do. you used the word demonization in your last segment and i'm afraid that's what the politicians are doing to china right now. we have to take a long, hard look in the mirror and figure out what's driving this concern here. we don't saves as a nation, so we have to import surplus savings from abroad and run
these giant trade deficits not just with china, but with over 90 countries around the world. we have a multi-lateral trade problem. if we close down trade with china and don't fix our saving problem, we'll swing that chinese trade deficit to another trading partner and that will be a higher cost producer and that will tax the american public. so, we've got to watch out what we do here. >> be nice if we promoted some saving by lowering the federal budget deficit and maybe even cutting spending. steve, i want to ask you this in terms of your observation of china, would they or will they on their own allow the one-time appreciation or a gradual appreciation to tamp down what some people believe is a chinese bubble and i'm not sure if i'm in that camp, you're smarter than i am about this. but the manufacturing reports out of china today were very strong. jim and uothers think it's a bubble. what is your take on all that?
>> i don't think it's a bubble, larry, but you're right they're moving in a direction of going back to a gradual currency appreciation. they were on that path for the three years 2005 to mid-2008. they suspended it during the crisis. senior official os have told us they're going back to it. but if we keep pressuring them, they will not do it under external pressure. let them do it on their own. they are committed to doing it and, you know, i think this is the right answer for them and the right answer for the world. >> how do we turn around the problem of the saving rate. it is a tough time to do it especially when we talk about we need people to go out and consume when we need to turn the economy around. we hang on consumer sentiment and say people need jobs because they have to go out and spend. how do we turn around that trend? >> most of it is not going to happen right now. you know it and the government knows it and over time hopefully
we will move back into a positive savings position. >> how? >> if you look at the broadest measure of our domestic saving and net national saving rate it fell to a minus 2.5% of national income last year and the only way to climb out of that over time is through responsible deficit reduction and getting consumers to start saving again. that's going to happen over time, but not immediately. >> steve, last one. it's rare to get you and i just want to pick your brain on china's thinking. will they, is there any movement towards chinese currency convertibility and then opening up china capital flows in and out of the country? i think those are two crucial issues to this whole debate. convertibility and, you know, free capital flows. >> larry, that's the end game. and whether that takes place, you know, in the next ten years or the next 20 years, no one knows, not even the chinese know. but it's very clear that by the year 2020, they really do want
to establish shanghai as a world financial center and they can't do that unless the capital account is oep on and the currency is convertible. it will happen, but it will happen gradually as it should for a developing economy with an embryonic financial system. >> trish, over to you. when we come back, 2009 was a good year for the top hedge fund managers. one ranking in about $4 billion. are these salaries justified or should there be another crackdown on wall street? mac fans already know, but all about the new tablet. we'll look at apple's hottest new product right here on "the call."
welcome back to "the call" everyone. i'm trish regan. want to get you caught up on these markets. the s&p trading up almost 1%. 1178, you have, of course, that strong manufacturingidata and the best number in several years, about six years for manufacturing data and jobless claims declining. the dow jones industrial definitely looking closer and closer to that 1 1,000 mark. up 73 points and meanwhile the nasdaq in the green as well as we head into this holiday weekend. wow, what a difference a year makes. the top 25 hedge fund managers
managed $1 billion each in 2009, including one who made $4 billion. now, that hasn't gone unnoticed at the white house. take a listen. >> people were paid for taking enormous risks. if those risks turned out well, they made a lot of money. they were not exposed to loss. it was a crazy way to run a financial system and it helped contribute to the kind of excess risk taking that you saw across the country and it's the government's job. this is a job for governments to doa better job of constraining that kind of risk taking. >> are these salaries justified or simply business as usual on wall street? we want to bring in two guests. great to see you, gentlemen. you know, jonathan, if i make a lot of money for my company, i think it's, in some ways, fair that i get a percentage of that. isn't that sort of how the world works? >> it's how the world works and it's, this is compensation levels that i are negotiated
with customers. the clients of these hedge funds are giant, sophisticated institutions and they know what the payoff structure is. i think paying 400 bucks for a hair cut is a lot of money. but doesn't mean -- >> if you agree to pay it. >> as you can see y don't. >> that's the issue here, really. an investor is making a choice and in many of these cases the investor made out big time with significant gains and so you pay for that, right? >> right. this is not a case where they're paying people with t.a.r.p. money or government money. this is hedge funds that are not and should not be subject to government bailouts. they ought to, the american way is they ought to be able to pay exactly what they want to pay and what the market will bear and what their customers, again, large sfophisticated institutions. larry, i know you want to get in here. >> let me bring in jay brown and rebut jonathan macy.
jay, look, i think there's an open debate about hedge fund performance whether they lose money or not. one thing i don't understand from your notes, hedge funds weren't a problem in the financial meltdown. hedge funds had nothing to do with the financial meltdown. that's the part i don't get. what did they do? >> well, first of all -- >> to a certain extent, let me elaborate on that point, jay. the banks, they got themselves into the trouble that they got into. david ihorn turned out to be right. he didn't need to be right if lehman had taken on all that risk. aren't the banks essentially responsible? >> if you want to go back and trace the financial crisis, everybody traces it to the failure of two bear stearns hedge funds back in march of 2008 and that, essentially, ultimately led to the collapse of bear stearns. you can't go back and say hedge funds had nuthing to do with the financial crisis. >> jay, we're talking about a different animal here. that's bear stearns, they made
bad mistakes and those were tucked inside the corporations. i'm talking about paulson and the rest of them. look, i just don't understand and geithner agrees with you so i disagree with both of you. what do these guys have to do with the meltden? they're still standing. they covered their positions and they didn't take loans. they were in t.a.r.p. they just did what they do. >> larry, last year in 2008 800 hedge funds failed. there's $1.6 trillion in hedge funds -- >> what's wrong with that? >> i want banks to fail. >> well, what's wrong with that is this, i'm not here to demonize hedge funds. i think apple made $4 billion and apple looked like they were doing a good service for the financial markets buying bank stocks when everybody else was bailing but what i'm here to demonize is a fee structure that says you get 20% of the profit that you bet it all. do a casino-like approach to investing.
if you lose everything, you lose nothing. >> yawn on t >> jonathan -- >> i'm here to say that's excessive risk taking. >> you just say 800 hedge funds went out of business. jonathan, if you're working at a hedge fund and your book comes up negative, what is the price you pay for that? in many cases you're out of a job. >> you're out of a job and it's worth noting that guys like temper who are making very large amounts of money are not the ones who have underperforming hedge funds. there's a direct and correlation between the compensation these people get and their performance. so, again, it's not with government money. you know, the only thing that i think is wrong here is that what these people did to make a lot of the money was bet correctly that the u.s. government was going to continue to bail out these banks. maybe if the government wasn't so predictable about bailing out firms like bear stearns that
there wouldn't be so much low-hanging fruit. >> jonathan, let me ask you one point on this. dave faber made a good point. some ten years didn't help their investors at all and made them selves a fortune. it just seems like i don't know if the incentive structure is as firmly committed to mperformanc as you or i or jay would want it to be. is that an issue? >> i don't think it's an issue at all. the people who invest in these hedge funds do so, number one, voluntarily. number two, with full information and the idea is they think the benefits and the incentive structure are greater than the costs and the risks. >> in other words, they know what they're signing up for. >> they know what they're signing up for. the idea is for them to cut these people off would mean that they wouldn't engage in risk taking. they're willing to accept this compensation structure. >> know ahead, jay. you want to react to that.
>> first of all, these hedge funds do not have good information out there. require them to register with the sec. the first thing is, they're not transparent and, second, a lot of big institutions. a lot of which are pension plans that are investing money for retirees and also people that are modest, modest income earners. you only have to have $200,000 a year to invest in some of these to be an credited investor and, fourth, they're using a lot of leverage. they are using bank money. >> we're going to say, no, you can't invest in this unless you have $1 million. sfwht t isn't the american way to say, i make that choice myself to decide whether i want to take on that risk. >> investors big and small need protections. right? it's not enough to say that because there's sophisticated investors that the government should just take a pass here. >> i don't think investors, i don't think investors need protections. in fact, i think if you make a mistake, you should pay for it. failure is an intrigal part of
capitalism. if you make a mistake on your house, you have to pay for it. investments, you have to pay for it. heck, i would like to have loan modification for my index stock funds that are down 20%. i'm not hearing anything about that. i have a problem with that safety net stuff. you've gone too far, my friend, jay brown. you've gone too far. >> at the top of the hour, larry, you said you wish you were a hedge fund investor. they're saying to all of our best and brightest, don't go out and start microsoft, don't go out and start apple. be a hedge fund investor. that's the wave of the future. that is what you should be doing. >> philosophically, i like that point. we don't have time to pursue. the best and brightest of the young go into manufacturing or go into technology or go into education. >> there's a general shift in our economy. the reality is we have shifted to financial service. >> i don't know want to do about that, but i'm sympathetic with
that philosophical point. >> these people are looking for parts of the economy that are not regulated. we have a market economy and the market economy attracts these people. who are we going to put in charge of the government agency that's going to say we should put a cap on hedge funds manager salaries. this is so far down the road to socialism. >> i think it's a dangerous -- >> we have to get out. i would like a loan modification on my index funds. >> me, too, larry. maybe we can work that out for our 401(k)s. thanks, guys, we appreciate it. >> that's a good idea. hey, why not, we're doing everything else. when we come back, apple's much-anticipatedi pad hits stores in just under 48 hours. >> where the buzz is building, hi, brian. >> we know apple is on a hot streak. we're asking, can the ipad crush the kindle? we'll address that next only on "the call."
would you like to see our new police department? yeah, all right. this way. and here it is. completely networked. so, anything happening, suz? she's all good. oh, my gosh. is that my car? [ whirring ] [ female announcer ] the new community. see it. live it. share it. on the human network. cisco. to the all-american meal. french fries, and our national passion for them, are legendary. classic. iconic. but times change and people want better foods. so cargill helped a restaurant chain create... a zero trans fat cooking oil for their french fries... canola plants... and innovative processing techniques... while preserving their famous taste. because no one wants to give up a classic. this is how cargill works with customers. ♪
only a few hours to go apple's ipad hits stores this weekend while many are getting them by mail others may pull an all-nighter waiting in line outside the apple store. apple share trading at all-time high since its ipo in december of 1980. $236.95 the last trade there. up almost another percenta agag the day. brian joins us from the apple store where the buzz is building. brian? >> 9:00 a.m. saturday morning when much of america is waking up people will be lining up to get their hands on the next big thing. no huge lines as of yet because of the preord oers and they're healthy in numbers but apple doesn't give us a whole lot of guidance on that. if you haven't seen the ipad, where have you been? take a look at it. it looks like an iphone on steroids, if you will. a lot of people asking why is apple going into this space. the tablet space a little sleepy and it's been a little small but
with ereaders getting so much traction this is all about amazon's kindle and how well it's done. the competition with the kindle is over before it even starts. >> i think that they can probably crush the kindle. i think that so far, unless the kindle comes back and also counters the ipad with substantial and improved technology, the ipad seems to be better than the kindle. >> now, the counterargument is with 3g or with color and touchscreen that this is a whole lot more than just an ereader. >> again, the ipad's success or failure is not going to be based solely on how well it competes with the kindle. i think that will be one of its competitors, but i think this is really competing in a much broader market segment. >> now, credit suisse put that 300 price target just a little while ago, larry, on apple. he says the ipad could add 20
cents a share for this quarter because of the ipad. so, it's going to be a boost, but the optimism on the stock in general has a lot more to do with what apple does, not just the ipad? >> all right, brian shactman, i'll be there at 9:00 a.m., right on time. >> no you won't, liar. a special "power lunch" coming up at the top of the hour and a very special michelle curusa cabrera will be joining us. >> we are going to peel back all the layers and get to the business and investing angles. first of all, david pouge the most renowned tech reviewer in the country and he'll bring us his review of the ipad and tell you whether or not you should be buying it. a new proprietary lunch. whether the ipad can live up to its hype promise.
steve jobs, why does everything he touch seemingly turns to gold. one of the creators of "seinfeld" is doing a sit com based on steve job's life. you'll hear more about it at noon. >> i did not know that. thank you very much. coming up next, the ceo of sports authority. >> you're watching cnbc, first in business worldwide.
athletic pursuits. a survey indicates 23% of active americans say they plan to spend more in 2010. you might as well stay in shape. good news for retailers and for our next guest in particular who is joined by our very own darin rovell. >> sporting goods business is a fascinating business. joining us now to talk about the state of the state of thedry and where it is and where it's headed david campesi who was named ceo just two weeks ago. that number from the sporting goods manufacturing association suggests people will buy more equipment this year than last year. what were you not selling last year that you'll sell this year? >> that's terrific thing to hear and this year we're selling more fitness equipment than we did last year and the other thing that we're starting to see from a trend point of view is the women fitness apparel is on fire again. she's back in the marketplace shopping with authority and
we're excited about that. >> you got that toning category, which is just blowing out the doors. you mentioned fitness equipment, it seems like in general some of the sports or activities that cost less to play, yoga or yoga, what else have we got inpilates. it's just a mat. how do you sell more? >> well, we're selling more. i would tell you, we came out of fourth quarter with a pretty strong performance and that trajectory has continued in the q1 and, absolutely, you're right on on what is going on with yoga and the handheld type of activities out there. even the wii fit plus, the board that we launched exclusively in our channel last november is selling incredally well. we wish we had more product and we really build that as another way to get fit with the families in mind, which is really our core. >> i have to run, one last question for you, the folks at
golfsmith told us that tiger woods branded sale are up 6% in the past six months. what have you seen in golf in particular? >> the golf business is quite good. again, the nike business is very good throughout the box, including the apparel side. golf is very, very good. >> david campisi, the new ceo of sports authority. thanks for joining us on "the call today." >> thank you very much. that will do it for us here on "the call." i'll see you in a moment on "power lunch." >> have a terrific weekend, everyone. >> i'm larry kudlow and i'll see you tonight on "the kudlow report." at 7:00 p.m. eastern. national car rental? that's my choice.
30% jump in auto sales. can ford top that? find out just moments from now. i'm melissa francises. tech hungry consumers gear up for saturday's ipad arrival. we are all over it. david pouge's review on whether you should believe the hype and the cult of steve jobs. what is behind his golden touch. they're making a show about him now a. steve jobs. >> a tv show being piloted at the moment based on his life. >> based on the fake steve jobs cult of a couple of years ago. very interesting to see. we had big reviews, pouge this morning in the "times" and we'll talk to him and see from him and sort of different takes. one says revolution and one says evolution. let's go to matt nesto, now, who has those numbers that we talked about a moment ago on ford. >> thanks, tyler, very much. adjust the number of march